time. they ended up with a lot of money and we ended up poor. i thought i was going to be well taken care of, but i lost it in the stock market so i'm not living as well as i would like to. i'm happy because i can i think we need to find out how we can regulate and not have them get so much money and leave the rest of us suffering. host: thank you for the call this morning. when is the next survey coming out? guest: certain questions get asked every year and how they shift based on the economy. the idea it is not to have the one tical document w

candidate or the other. host: you can find the survey and thank you so much for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] host: a nomination is taking place. you can see the hearings going on pretty soon in the senate foreign relations committee. thank you for joining us. we'll see you tomorrow.

>> waiting for the senate foreign relations committee to gavel in. waiting for james cunningham and richard olson. thel be back covering subcommittee later this afternoon. living at the benefits of doing business in latin america with increased competition for china and the impact of the political environment in latin america. that will be on c-span3 this afternoon. the house will gavel in at noon

for general speeches. 19 bills on the agenda today. back on c-span3, the house rules committee will be meeting at 5:00 eastern. tax reform and the farm bill which includes emergency drought relief. that will be on c-span3, live coverage at 5:00 p.m.

>> the ranking republican is senator richard lugar who lost in the primary for reelection to his senate seat. is a runoff in texas. today it is david dewhurst facing ted cruz, who is supported by the tea party. that runoff election today in texas.

>> the hearing will come to order. good morning. we apologize for beginning a few minutes late. there are more meetings going on then there are hours and

available moments to get to them. we are delighted to welcome everybody here to consider the nominations of those who are selected to serve in the very important post of afghanistan and pakistan. ambassador james cunningham and richard olson are experienced and talented diplomats. i am convinced that they bring the combination of intelligence and experience, diligence necessary for both of these critical assignments. -- pick hearing comes the newspapers and afghanistan and pakistan are swirling

around. the assigning of the strategic partnership agreement marked the beginning of the end a new face of u.s. engagements in afghanistan. the world is not going to simply walk away or abandon its investment in a stable afghanistan. our task is to leverage our commitments into a transition that prevents afghanistan from backsliding into widespread ethnic or sectarian violence. coordinated and economic transition will be challenging. there are several key steps that we need to focus on. we must prepare now for the afghan elections in 2014.

it is the political transition that will determine whether our military gains are sustainable. our role should not interfere in domestic politics. it is critical that afghans must pick their leaders fairly and freely. transparency in new election laws is a critical step for afghans in order that they have a choice and a voice in the election. our strategy has to go beyond reconcilation in order to support a consensus among key afghan stakeholders. too many afghans are preparing

to fight to secure their interests. i think we need to send the message that the united states supports a comprehensive process that is transparent ever all groups,pectful of including women. to leave behind a force that can support key terrain. there are questions about the viability of that. we have two years to lay that foundation. as i talk to leaders in pakistan, there are a difference in stated interest about the size and scope of that force.

there is a connection to those interests with respect to each country's forces that it is making right now. we need to continue to focus on combating corruption, on emphasizing support for human rights and on human law. as we begin to build -- or as the afghans gained confidence about their future, we need to move in the areas of economic development and stability. despite the progress that was made in tokyo to pledge $16 billion in donor aid, afghanistan could face a major economic crisis. we have made significant achievements over the past decade. the gains are fragile.

sustain them it will require continued investments. our approach must take into account afghanistan's worsening humanitarian crisis. there is no shortage of challenge here. our strategy to have to continue to reflect the interconnectedness of the region cost challenges, and central asia to iran t. what happens in the region as a whole will do more to determine the outcome in afghanistan than any shift in strategy. pakistan remains central to that effort. it is this secret that last year

it was challenging in a relationship. many pakistanis believe americans will simply abandon the region. pakistan continues to hedge its certain rely conceron strategic groups. there should be a more cooperative relationship and we see accusations regarding afghanistan-based insurgent initiatives in pakistan. the recent developments with pakistan have fled to the reopening of the critical nato supply lines. serious policy makers on both sides understand that we have more to gain by finding common ground and working together in

areas of mutual concern. i think we need to point out that pakistan has suffered grievously at the hands of al qaeda, the taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups. then 6000 security forces have died from terrorist incidents since 2001. pakistan is facing an energy crisis and political infighting complicate efforts to address deteriorating situations, and none of us are unfamiliar with those kinds of dynamics here a home. we have been trying to work with pakistan to create a stable economy. often the reward for

diplomats to succeed in difficult postings is tougher assignments with longer odds and our nominees today are no exceptions to that rule. james cunningham has served 8a tour in afghanistan. i want to note that his wife and his daughters are here today and we welcome them. all of you, all three of you. it is good to see him here today. i was them in kabul and i'm delighted to welcome him back. richard olson was the coordinating direct your in

kabul. i am confident his previous leadership will serve him well as he works to strengthen our relationship with pakistan. we are pleased to welcome them. ambassador olson, i believe your daughter is here, isabella. is interning in senator you call's office -- udall's office. got an inside track. we thank you for your service and we thank your families for their service. senator lugar. >> thank you. i join you in welcoming our distinguished nominees and their families this morning. the foreign relations committee is taking up these nominations at a critical time.

we look forward to hearing the administration's assessment of the situation and the plans for moving forward. american policy in afghanistan has been evolving on the margins. troop levels are anticipated to be reduced in the coming months. the united states continues to spend enormous sums that country that may contribute little to the united states vital interest. we need a clear measure of what must be satisfied to achieve the original intent of the mission. it is in central afghanistan is viewed the broader context.

if we reapportioned our worldwide military assets without reference to where they are now, it is doubtful that a rational review it would commit so many resources to afghanistan. the country is important but does not hold that level of strategic value for us, especially when our nation is confronting a debt crisis, our armed forces have been strained, and we're attempting to place more emphasis on east asia. al qaeda has a more significant presence in afghanistan. to the extent that our purpose is to confront the global terrorist threat, we should be refocusing resources on pakistan, yemen, somalia, and

other locations. the question becomes how to transition to an efficient strategy for protecting our vital interest in afghanistan over the long term that does not involve open ended expenditures and large military deployments. the pakistan side of the border has a different dynamic. al qaeda and other terrorist groups maintain a strong presence in the country. there is no question the strateg threat of these groups,e safety of pakistan eight nuclear arsenal and pakistan's intercession with other states make it 8 vital country worth the cost of engagement. the contradictions inherent in the government necessitate that

we comply intents oversight to make sure our diplomacy advance our objectives. our ambassador will be the critical player in evaluating whether our programs are working and contributing to a partnership between our countries. in 2011, almost 3,200 pakistanis died in terrorist- related incidents. our countries have strong incentive to cooperate. i appreciate the sacrifices that our nominees have already made on behalf of the united states national security. i applaud the commitment they accept another afford to the testimony of our distinguished witnesses.

>> ambassador cunningham, if you would leavd off. full statement will be placed in the record. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. i am truly honored that president obama and secretary clinton have placed their trust in me and i look forward to working closely with you. i welcome frequent opportunities to consult with you. i've been serving as deputy ambassador in leading a mission of some 1100 dedicated staff from 18 u.s. government agencies. and pursuingalollow

the approach for the important challenges before us. we have achieved a great deal over the past year including completion of our strategic partnership agreement which will guide our partnership now and beyond the transition in 2014. the strategic partnership sends a clear message to the region that afghanistan will have the support of the international community. if confirmed, i will build on this successful diplomatic campaign, underscoring our commitment that will contribute to stability in the region and it never again be a source of a terrorist threat to the united states. on september 11, 2001, i was in

new york. i said the 9/11 terror attack was not just an attack on the united states but an attack on all. that struggle between terror and those values continues today and will continue for some time to come. we're turning a page in afghanistan. we have created an unprecedented for a mark of support for afghanistan consisting of a web of commitments. our strategy for a stable afghanistan has five elements. training afghan national security forces.

building an enduring partnership with afghanistan. promoting regional stability and economic integration. at the lisbon summit in 2010, we established a timeline for transition. the afghans are taking on responsibility for security and taking the lead now for some 75% of the population. security forces will reach their full strength soon. at the conference in december last year, afghan leaders presented the outlines of a strategy to ensure afghanistan stability beyond the troop drawdown. the international committee committed to supporting afghanistan from 2015 to 2024.

in may of this year, the strategic partnership agreement was signed. announcementnton's that the president and designated afghanistan a major ---nato all the international committee committed to providing the afghan security forces, the support and funds they need for systemic. the government recognize that nato and its partners have a

crucial role to play and invited nato to continue their support after the mission concludes at the end of 2014. the international community gathered in tokyo to further define the concept of mutual accountability and a share economic assistance. the japanese announced the international committee had pledged $16 billion in aid. the adoption of a framework which a firm that international assistance to afghanistan is not unconditional. the government must act decisively to ensure the returns are sustained and irreversible. that must include fighting

corruption, strengthening the rule of law. so today, the pieces of the thecture for afghan -- security transition it does not mean we are abandoning afghanistan. the taliban appeared to be taking notice. they are signaling an openness to negotiations. to create the convictions for inclusive national dialogue among all afghans about the future of their country. we have been consistent about the necessary outcomes of any negotiation. insurgents must break ties with al qaeda and abide by the afghan constitution including the rights afforded to women and

minorities. the taliban face a clear choice -- they can enter an afghan peace process or face increased national security forces supported by the united states and our allies. a constitutional transfer of power. president karzai has confirmed -- all afghans have much to gain from a successful political transition and should support it. the united states is committed to working with international partners as they choose thei next leader. i will not play down the

difficulties. we will continue to support the afghan people with a new president and the hard work needed to bring the security and stability which the afghan people desire and deserved after decades of violence. i would be honored to leave the u.s. mission in afghanistan in the import work of enhancing the security of the united states. thank you, mr. chairman and i look forward to your questions. >> ambassador olson. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, i thank you for the chance to be here today. i appreciate this demonstration of confidence by president

obama and secretary clinton. i look forward to working closely with you to events america's interest in pakistan. have served in the foreign service and have worked many of these years in the islamic world, as recently as the ambassador to the united arab emirates. through my career i've been thankful for the support of my family, especially my wonderful daughters. i do not need to tell you how important pakistan is to the united states. the united states has a clear interest in supporting a democratic pakistan at peace with itself and its neighbors. continued engagement is important to pursue the continued defeat of al qaeda.

to encourage regional stability and to support economic stability within pakistan. instability in pakistan would undermine what we are trying to achieve in the region. pakistan is located in a tough region and continues to face economic stagnation and is home to 200 million people. extremists have killed over 30,000 soldiers and citizens. pakistan is a country with great potential and a talented people. the last seven years have been difficult for u.s.-pakistan relation and s. despite many jaundice, we have

continued to engage the pakistanis at the highest levels. the reopening of the nato supply lines -- today in islamabad, there is an understanding with the pakistanis ministry of defense in the opening of the grand alliance and communication. i hope to build on the opportunity to define our shared interest with pakistan in practical ways to work together to achieve them. we share an interest in combating the extremists that threaten our countryies. they have lost more troops and civilians to act of terror than

any nation. we have captured or removed from the battlefield more terrorists on pakistan the soil than from anywhere else. we share an interest in supporting political stability in afghanistan. we want pakistan to be a full part in supporting afghan peace and stability. pakistan officials have told us that more than any of the nation they have a vested interest in seeking a secure afghanistan. promoting democratic and economic stability is also in our shared interest. a transition of power from one civilian power to another. we share an interest in combating the use of improvised explosive devices.

ways to increase border controls to restrict the flows of ied precursors. supporting private sector growth across borders is essential to creating jobs for pakistan's people. a tremendous impact on increasing cooperation in line with secretary clinton's v ision. our continued assistance which is focused on five priority sectors also helps promote a secure pakistan and stimulate economic growth over time. i would consult with the congress and with this committee which has played a vital role in

supporting our goals in pakistan. to help the pakistan it leadership and your counterparts understand how the american people view pakistan. please allow me to rewrite how honored i am to have been nominated as u.s. ambassador to pakistan. i thank you for considering my nomination. >> thank you very much. we have a competing meeting in the finance committee on the tax extenders which i need to attend shortly and i think senator casey will chair. i apologize to our witnesses. let me ask you -- you are well

aware of the cross currents on the hill with respect to the relationship with pakistan. i have met with the ambassador to talk this through and they are well aware and the most recent step to reopen it is an effort to try to settle things down. some people in congress are advocating a more precipitous kind of reaction to the current state of affairs. some want to suspend aid. could you state the congress as you go over there how you see

that? why that would be ill-advi ment.in your judgem >> thank you, mr. chairman. our relationship with pakistan is critical to our national security interest, primary in the area of counter terrorism cooperation. over the past decade, we are in the position of virtually eliminating al qaeda as a threat to to us. i think that we want to continue to formulate a relationship that allows us to strengthen

counterterrorism cooperation. i was pleased that in your opening remarks do mentioned the perception of many pakistanis that the united states had disengages in the 1990's. i think pakistanis in the government and outside are concerned about what will happen in afghanistan post 2014. we have put in place some very strong measures for assuring afghans and the region that we will be engaged after 2014. this is the great significance of the assistance on a predictable basis and provide a

stable basis for an ongoing relationship. if we can continue to emphasize our engagement over time, it will be possible to build the kind of productive relationship based on mutual interests that will serve us over the long term. >> what do think the pakistan the attitude is about the network? >> with regard to the network, i think this is one of the toughest challenges that we face and i would say at a personal level as well as professional level, i have been in kabul and i was at the network --and the sea during the attacks that took place and i have a certain amount of skin in

the game for this issue. we do know that they are based -- we have taken some actions against thehaqqani network. keep leaders have been designated sensing their travel and their finances. the question of the designation of the network is on secretary -- with secretary clinton right now. we will continue and this will be a primary focus of my activities and my diplomatic

engagement to encourage further measures against the haqqani network and further squeezing of the haqqani. >> i look forward to connecting with you when you get out there. thank you for that. ambassador cunningham, i assume you had the opportunity to read the piece i "the new yorker." could you comment on the number of articles that seem to be appearing, talking about how afghans are planning for the fight and laying the groundwork for a longer confrontation as we draw down rather than engaging in the fight for the democratic process and other things. give us your sense of that state of play. >> sure.

thank you. andink what we're seeing has seen for awhile -- there are a lot of people in this region and hedging their bets against the future. i think the talk of rearming and reforming of militias is overstated. the temptation is there and the uncertainty about how various groups will advance their interest in the future is very much on the table. that's why i said in my statement the upcoming political transition is vitally important. this is not an issue of one party or another. it is an issue for all afghans

and all afghans political actors to take a hard look at the significance of the upcoming elections and what that means for afghanistan's future and the unity of the country. we are working on that in consultations with members of the international community and with afghans across the political and civil society spectrums. it is something i regard as a key element and a key task for all of us who are interested in afghanistan's future. the way for it has to be one of a political process including the taliban or elements there of. it cannot be future the resorts

to internal conflict or based on conflict between various arm conflict. >> do we have sufficient leverage that we could increase our initiatives in that regard? or are we locked in because of the drawdown? >> our leverage is quite potential. i think the logic is there. afghans see that there is a tremendous amount at stake in the coming years. we will have a crucial role in all the elements of our strategy, and not just we, international committee more broadly.

afghans international partners are united behind the proposition that the political process needs to be credible and knees to produce a peaceful transition. >> thank you. thank you both of you and i look forward to seeing you out there. lugar?nator >> i am pleased that you are willing to undertake these responsibilities. i have confidence in both of you and the confirmation process should be an opportunity for us to discuss pakistan and afghanistan to obtain more information for our committee and the republic. i want to raise this question

broadly. deadly brutal attacks within pakistan amounted to well over 3000 pakistanis killed. the threat of violent military groups is pervasive. no part of pakistan is spare. there were suicide and armed attacks in karachi as well as in the tribal areas. how does the government and the people classify this thread t? how was the government worked on the internal threat these terror groups represent? can you distinguish between our efforts to support these efforts to combat terrorist threats and

the regional threats from the safe havens that is our primary concern? >> i agree entirely with your assessment about the nature of the challenge that pakistan faces internally. we have seen a great shift in the government of pakistan's approach over the past few years in dealing with the internal threat. there was a time when the pakistan army was primarily deployed along the frontier with india. it is deployed internally and especially in the area near the province to deal with the insurgent threat. we're familiar with the counter

insurgency operation a few years ago. i think that we have recognized and supported this change and thanks to the generosity of the congress, we have a variety of funding mechanisms funding security assistance to build the capability of the pakistanis forces, moving them away from a focus on heavy armor toward lighter counter insurgency operations. there have been challenges with the program but i will look forward to working with you and members of other committees to see what we can do to remove some of the obstacles on the important programs. >> to what extent is this

violence undermined any potential for civil government in pakistan? what are the ramifications to the government itself? >> i think the pakistan government does face many challenges. in the last year regard to the floods, i would say there are some strengths in pakistan it society. there is an active civil society which picks up a considerable amount of the flak. the pakistan military is a strong institution and has been involved in building capacity. our assistance program is

focused on building up some of the capacity of the civilian government, particularly in energy and economic growth and in stabilization, road building in the areas closest to the afghan border. i think all of these programs have been effective. i take on board the point that has been made that we need to exercise diligence oversight and report back to you on the effectiveness of those programs. >> let me ask while teetering on the brink of insolvency on some occasions, pakistan appears to forgo considerable revenue including those associated with transit trade. pakistan signed an agreement

with afghanistan. has been little progress in actual trade across pakistan and jobs continue to be lost. what is the prospect of trade finding alternative routes through iran? iwhat is the total estimate of revenue lost to pakistan during the closure of the resupply routes? we are talking about our assistance to pakistan and the problems they have in terms of internal governance. what is the focus when it comes to trade and other building of income in the country? >> thank you, senator.

i agree that the afghan- afghanistan transit and trade agreement has not fully lived up to its potential. it is an important step potentially. it is one that i was somewhat involved in supporting in my previous position. i will certainly -- i have travelled to islamabad last fall to me with pakistan officials to urge further implementation. there have been a variety of technical factors that have yet ut. i would doo pursue that if confirmed with great vigor. with regard to the regional trade, one of the promising things that we have seen is the

liberalization of trade with india. the indian economy is a period of rapid expansion. pakistan has granted most favored nation status to india and has move to liberalize its trade from a so-called positive list to a negative list that limits only strategic goods. we want to encourage further progress in the economic dialogue and commercial relationship between india and pakistan. >> thank you very much. >> i want to commend ambassador cunningham and ambassador olson. these are tough posts.

also to your family. i am resisting the temptation to say how great it is that you were born in allentown, pennsylvania. new jersey is pretty good, too. i wanted to start with pakistan. provide a little bit of a backdrop for a predicate to my question. it is the question about ied's the precursor elements. you say on the second to last page of your testimony, "share a list of combating the use of ie d's and looking for ways to increase border controls to restrict the ied's. i am happy to see that in your

statement. most americans know what ied's are and the horrific impact they have on our troops. they now be as familiar with the precursor in greed, the ammonium nitrate or callous and ammonium nitrate flowing from pakistan into afghanistan and become the central element in that explosive capacity. i have spent a lot of time on this issue as have many members of congress. the administration has worked very hard on this. i spoke to secretary clinton about this yesterday. i wanted to get your sense of it because when i was in pakistan last august, in every meeting that we had, whether it was the

prime minister then or the president's with the general, the army chief, we brought this up and they knew we were coming, in a sense. they were prepared for the question and would address the question, express their solidarity with us on the issue. they have lost a lot of civilians in this horrific nightmare. then they went another step to say and providing us a briefing by the interior ministry, outlining their written plan and then the expressed determination to implement what they had written down on paper. we said when is this and they said it is within months. i was expecting some time in the fall we would see some measure of progress.

maybe it would take a little longer. to date, there's been no substantial progress made. you see it in every state. pennsylvania has lost about 79000 troops in afghanistan, more than half from ied's. what can you do in your new posting and what will you do in the weeks, the first couple of weeks that you get there to press the pakistan government on at least one fundamental point. this is in their interest as much as it is in our interest to stop this flow of ammonium nitrate to reduce the chance that more civilians or troops will be blown up by these perfect explosions.

>> thank you very much, senator casey, both for the question and i do want to acknowledge the central importance of ied's and countering their precursors. i appreciate the enormous cost that these devices have brought about. i want to thank you for spending three days in pakistan and making the effort to spend a significant amount of time. it is appreciated when senators do that. i do think we share a common interest with the pakistanis on ied's. they have suffered heavy losses from ied's. there is a slight distinction because most of the ied's are

generated from military -grade explosive devices, which they have found, chapin leak out into the marketplace. there are ways we can pursue it. i will work closely with my team if confirmed with the dod balance to approach the government as you note in the early days of my tenure if confirmed to follow up on this and report back to you. >> what is your sense as to the reason why there hasn't been progress made?

i realize the relationships is an impediment to making progress, but i can tell you how many times the promise was made to us as representatives of our government, promising over and over again that they would make progress. i want to get to your sense of what you believe to be the reason why they haven't made progress. >> senator, this is an issue where it would be best for me to go out and get the ground truth and bring that back to you. my sense on this is that there have been relationship issues that have perhaps added some friction and prevented some movement forward on this.

in pakistan, it is not illegal to produce it because it has agricultural use, and that may present a domestic issue. if confirmed, i would like to get that on the ground and get back to you. >> i would like to talk to about the general's work and how he has spent time on this and we can both learn from his experience. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you where public service. we had some time in the office yesterday and mr. olson, we're going to be doing that in about one hour. if any of us wanted to be hard on you, it's hard to do so thank

you all for being here. i know that you are currently working together or have spent some time together. as we travel through afghanistan, our military operators there are most concerned about a war in afghanistan being controlled out of pakistan. i think that has been the greatest frustration to our military leaders and many have experienced his comments and concerns. which jobs to you consider to be the most difficult? i don't want a long paragraph, but seriously, which do you consider? >> some going to let my boss answer that. >> it's impossible to say.

they're both challenging positions in challenging times. being ambassador to pakistan, a country that is so large has to be a significant challenge. my task in a country at war and where we are fighting along with their afghan and international partners is a challenge of a different order. >> several years ago, we embarked on the holbrook doctrine. as we talked with people in both countries, especially in pakistan, they've used that approach to be very offensive. looking at pakistan to the eyes

of afghanistan was pretty offensive. we don't really have a relationship in pakistan. almost a play to -- almost pay to play kind of relationship. as we deal with a country and the elected leaders are not particularly effective, how do americans really the taxpayer that is quite frustrated. how do we leverage our relationships cents it's not really one built on good will? how we leverage the resources to act pakistan to work and away we would like to see the mac?

>> thank you. that's an excellent question. our relationship with pakistan goes back quite a way, write to the beginning of the pakistani state. it has had some ups and downs but there have been times of perry close and intense partnership. most notably in the 1980's and that was a relationship that centered around afghanistan. i would agree with you that pakistanis have seven concerns

but at the same time, the long- term status of afghanistan is enormously important. what our interest is overtime is building a more stable relationship, one that is focused on regional interests, but takes account of the fact that the united states and the international community is not going to disengage. the great fear among many in the region, and i think it's true in pakistan as well, the international community will repeat the experience of 1989- 1992, having accomplished the withdrawal of the soviet forces, the international community turned away and disengaged.

that had a severe cost where a generation of military officers who had free muesli trade with institutions no longer had that opportunity and we are paying the cost right now. many of those officers are now general officers and have not been exposed to us in the way their predecessors were. all of the work ambassador cunningham described anarchy and ambassador crocker have been doing will have an enormous, reassuring effect on pakistani sensibilities and that's my priority to have that strategic level discussion about that yet it states not disengaging from the region. >> it seems to me, and i realize

that the elected leadership of pakistan is more than a week, but it seems to me they continue to do this things that are only in their self interest which we as a country to in many cases, but the very issue, there are multiple other issues that seem like they are concerned about afghanistan and their concern about india not having any influence there. they would rather be destabilized then have india be an influence their. >> this has been a doctor and where pakistan over the years have talked about strategic depth. afghanistan represents strategic depth as far as a conflict with

india. my sense is the military in pakistan and the government have moved away from that. the foreign minister has made some public comments about moving away from the doctrine of strategic that. the chief of staff has redeployed his forces internally to deal with the internal threat to deal with the threats emanating from that region. i think there is a basis at a strategic level for some further discussion and i think these are developments we would want to encourage as pakistan looks at its strategic position. >> i realize we continue to be

involved with pakistan and the notion of just cutting off all aid is not a particularly good way of staying engaged. but on the other hand, the way we have been going is not a good route. sometimes can't -- sometimes congress can be helpful to people like you by doing certain things like making things that are able to talk to you about these things and congress can continue doing attacks. -- can continue doing x. i understand our relationships down the road and i understand those things. but our relationship is very transactional.

how do we get them to act in a way that very different from way they are now acting? >> we need to focus on core areas of mutual interest. this is primarily in the counter-terrorism area. we have made enormous progress against al qaeda and we are within grasp of shutting down al qaeda. that has got to be our primary strategic objective that we need to have some very candid and direct discussions with the pakistan government about the question of the safe havens and the hakani network.

but it's important that takes place against the context of some predictability in the overall relationship. that is what i would be hoping to if confirmed bring to the relationship, the sense that we want to move away from a more transactional relationship to one based on a longer-term policy of engagement. the assistance that has been so generously provided by not american people has had a significant role in the future on stabilizing our relationship and showing our interests are not short term but rather long term. >> our interests are in our interest. i have taken too much time. thank you for your generosity

and your service. i look forward to talking to you. we have an election that is going to be over here soon and regardless of what the outcome is, in many ways there is a clean slate. there will not be the issue of dealing with who did what when. will have a clean slate no matter what the outcome is. i would just asked that both of you continue to be totally transparent and the fact is we candidly have leaders in both countries that are extremely difficult to deal with and candidly, in many cases are not working in ways that are beneficial to us. i hope you will continue to be as transparent as you were in our office. we look forward to your service. thank you. >> i wanted to turn to some

questions for ambassador cunningham. in a less than seven minutes we have -- we can further amplify questions for the record. i would like to ask you about women and girls in afghanistan. by one measure, we could assert that a roughly over the last decade, significant progress has been made. when you do the one metric that has meaning and value, the number of girls in school was almost no girls in school and a decade ago and now may be as high as one-third or more, millions are in school there are girls. that's a great measure of progress. the participation of women in

that government has also been a significant measure of progress. the concern is that even as progress is marching ford and even as president karzai speaks to this issue, as will be diminished or maybe even wiped out as a result of reconciliation that results in a conclusion after negotiations where women are set back s, if not to where they were, at least to a place where the gains would be substantially eroded. ambassador cunningham, when we were there, we had a meeting with women parliamentarians and they were inspirational on all

of levels. it is a lot tougher when your life is at stake. one of them i remember in particular, i remember asking my foreign-policy expert talked about her father and her has been participating in politics, both killed in the process. she was talking about her own involvement and focus being involved in politics in afghanistan. i would like to get your sense of not only where we are but our strategy can present -- can prevent the dramatic erosion of those games. >> that is an important issue.

i want to thank you for your focus on ied's. they are the killer of choice in afghanistan for both the military and four civilians. it's a real challenge so i appreciate your focus on that. women -- we have something called the woman of courage award in the department of state secretary gives every year. for the last five or six years the award has been given, an afghan woman has been a recipient of it. i think there are about 10 per year from around the world. we had a reception hosted by ambassador crocker to welcome this year's recipient who is a politician and media person in kandahar.

an absolutely incredible woman. we had a number of women from the region for this event and in that event, ambassador crocker said quite perceptively that any woman in public life in afghanistan is a woman of courage. it's a marvel to meet with these people and hear their stories and their sense of determination and commitment as you did. they have a truly invested their lives and personal safety in many cases in taking up a public role whether it is in business or even teaching or working in a health clinic. there are a lot of female politicians now in afghanistan, including at the district and

international level. the president's chief of staff is a woman and they have worked hard to create space. it's particularly inspiring to meet with women who are in universities now and coming out educated, looking for opportunities some time with the support of their families, but many times not. that's a long way of saying a lot has been vested in bringing afghanistan's women into those who can and want to bring them into society in a constructive way and i am proud to say the united states has played a significant role in this. we have programs across the board, everything from

education to midwifing to teaching business and entrepreneurial skills, language, information technology, educating women about the law. there is a good law in afghanistan that prohibits violence against women if it is enforced. we contribute to the network of shelters that are unfortunately necessary in afghan society but are extremely valuable in providing refuge for women who for whatever reason cannot stay with their families or husbands. a tremendous amount has been accomplished over the last years. it's one of the significant success stories and a tribute to the american people we have supported that. the united states and our international partners through a

series of declarations have made it very clear that these gains are not to be rolled back. they are protected under afghan law in the constitution and it has been a principal for us and discussions about reconciliation and the future of afghanistan and i expect that, i am sure that will continue to be the case and that will be my point of view if i am confirmed as ambassador. >> thank you very much. i know secretary clinton has not just spoken to this over and over again but has made a central focus of her work and we're grateful for that. i am out of time but i want to turn to senator mendez. >> thank you to you both for your long service to our country. ambassador cunningham, my understanding of the president's goal is the shift of the

military mission to it and assistance mission in afghanistan. in hopes of creating a functioning government there that helps rebuild lives and institutions. we have done that but with a much more committed partner. i look at the inspector general for afghanistan's reconstruction report that speaks to about a $400 million investment in large-scale infrastructure projects designed to win support from local governments may be wasted because of the ways in planning and execution such that those projects may not be completed until the troops leave or have already left. i look at a combative from the united states for $90 billion in

the administration requesting $9 billion in 2013. i look at all of this and i say giving of the -- given all the problems, how can we justify and expect we will effectively if we were to commit to those used those funds toward the development of a sustainable economy in afghanistan? something that i could go to taxpayers back in new jersey and say this is worthy of our support and will be well spent based upon the experience we have had so far? >> that is an important issue and thank you for raising it. we have a very broad assistance and development program in afghanistan. the specific issue of the afghan

infrastructure fund you referenced, we have some differences of view as we often do but we agree with many of the recommendations they made. this was an innovative program that tried to do something new, which is bring together several different u.s. entities that have not been cooperating particularly well with each other and to try to use the fund to bridge the difference between what normally had been short term infrastructure projects and a longer-term infrastructure that is necessary for stability and longer-term growth, particularly with roads and electric power.

this has taken longer to get under way than we would have hoped, but it has brought together a whole government approach to dealing with this and the program is constantly being reviewed and has gotten better in terms of coordination and oversight. while it will stretch out longer than originally intended, we are working hard to make it as effective as possible and make the best use of the funds we have been given for a very important purpose and one of those purpose is to link together the power networks in the north and south of afghanistan. they have the electrical power they need. to the question of the worth of the assistants we have been

providing it will be providing a lesser amount going forward, i understand very well that this entails sacrifice on the part of all our taxpayers, americans and others, who are supporting these efforts, but it has produced results and will continue to produce results and is really an investment on preserving the gains we have made on the field at great cost through our own efforts on security and the efforts the afghans are increasingly taking on. afghanistan is a veryoor country under the best of circumstances. it would still be a very poor country with tremendous problems. our work in developing assistance is part of our campaign to prepare and

afghanistan which can stand on its feet in a way that is sustainable over time and discos to the point senator lugar raised about what our enduring vital interest is in afghanistan. >> here is my problem. i understand our goals. but we have an administration in afghanistan that is undoubtedly significantly corrupt. we have an administration which we have seen wasted amounts of money. if afghanistan is going to be a ward of the united states for over a decade and we're going to spend $90 billion or more, at least there should be an expectation that there should be greater transparency, greater efficiency, less corruption, and

unless there are benchmarks to do that, i don't see how we can continue to make this long term, open-ended commitment without a concurring response. i know there are some responsibilities because we went in there but at the same time, there are responsibilities for them to be transparent, honest, and more specific. if you are to be confirmed that there is a strong commitment here not just for us to give, but for us to get at the end of the day. would it be my understanding that would be part of your drive here? >> absolutely. i have been in afghanistan for the past year and as ambassador

also knows, it's a daily part of not just our business with the afghan government, but every base business with the afghan government. one of the key outcomes, especially in the tokyo conference is putting clearly on the record there is precisely this expectation on the part of the people who are supporting afghanistan who want to support afghanistan. but they need to see real progress is being made, particularly dealing with corruption and government issues. in what is called the mutual accountability framework, there are specific things laid out that our expectations the government will address and as we speak, my colleagues are meeting with the afghan

government about how those elements are going to be at rest going for word and it's very much the kind of thing she said. greater transparency, greater accountability. we are doing that to make sure we know where american assistance is going and what is being used for. we will be insisting the afghan government produce greater accountability and transparency. >> i have one more question, if i may. it is want to make a comment. i have been supportive, but it's not an open-ended support. i have to see the movement toward those elements and i cannot continue at a time when we face such enormous challenges here at home. challenges that at the end of the date don't lead towards a

more transparent and honest process at a minimum. in a similar light, senator corker and i awhile back look for some benchmarks as relates to coalition's support in pakistan. in my view, it's incongruity to provide enormous sums to the pakistan military unless we are certain they are committed to locate, disrupt, and dismantle terrorist threats inside. it also promises to deliver billion dollars in the late military aid. what process are we getting in return beyond the convoy to a

commitment that the pakistan military is committed to support for extremist terrorist groups and preventing al qaeda and associated terrorist groups from operating within the territory of pakistan? all i hear about is pakistan seeking an end to the drone attacks. be providingg to billions of dollars, what's the concurrent commitment here? >> thank you. with regard to the coalition's support funds, this is a reimbursement for expenses incurred in the coalition activities. my understanding of the process

is that the pakistanis subnet packages for our review and we don't accept all of them. sure very careful to make they are in line with our own standards and criteria for the expenditure. with regard to the overall question of pakistan's support for counter-terrorism, the record of the last decade shows we have had substantial cooperation on the question of al qaeda. within grasp of defeating al qaeda as an

organization. a lot of that is due to support from the government. in addition, they are very concerned about the internal threat from insurgents and extremist organizations. the pakistan army has been effectively redeployed. many units that used to be on the indian border have been redeployed internally and are dealing with the threat coming from extremists. on the question of drones, the president has said we will go after extremists and those who threaten us wherever we find them.

it is beyond the level of classification for this hearing to discuss those programs in any great detail. if confirmed, i will continue to follow the president's direction as far as defending our national interests. >> so i think you are telling me as we're satisfied with the response? >> i think there is more that can be done and i think particularly with regard to the hakani network -- this is a very difficult issue and i'm coming at us from having served for the last year in the embassy on september 13 and april 15 when the attacks took place at originated out of all

waziristan. we are looking at ways to attack the question of the hakani network and we have designated several individuals. i would take it as a merger responsibility to continue to press pakistan for further action on the hakani network. thank you. we're at the end of the hearing and we want to thank our witnesses for testimony and your continuing commitment during these difficult postings and we thank your families. the record will be open until noon tomorrow for senators to submit questions. unless there is nothing further, we are adjourned.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012]

>> a senate foreign relations's subcommittee this afternoon to look into the benefits and challenges of doing business in latin america. witnesses will talk about increased competition from china, market barriers, and the impact of the political environment. that's live this afternoon at 2:00 eastern. we'll be live at the u.s. house where members will dabble in it for speeches and legislative work. there are 19 bills under

consideration, including stemming a piece of government credit cards and a further limits on abortion in the district of columbia. the house orel's committee meets this afternoon at 5:00 to go through some of the bills later this week including tax reform, expiring tax cuts, live at 5. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a vague and native american region and other dates called kentucky. but we began in 1778. >> this weekend, a joint book tv, american history tv, and c- span will call content of vehicles from louisville, ky. john david dike on mitch mcconnell and a rebidding

american politics, the internet revolution. three weeks at farmington plantation with becky on shaping abraham lincoln's you on slavery. also, the heyday of the steamboat on the ohio river. once a month, the c-span's local content vehicles explore the local life of cities across america. this weekend, from louisville on c-span 2 and 3. >> the u.s. house coming in at noon, eastern. until then, a conversation on campaign spending and negative ads. host: my guest is from the

campaign media analysis group. how-has it gotten out there on the airwaves? guest: there are really no positive that right now. generally, obama is talking about romney and romney and his allies are talking about obama. >> all three positive that score in spanish. compare what's happening right now two previous races at this point. are we at a particularly negative point in this race comparatively? guest: i have spent much of my career saying it's not the most negative race ever. but so far, this has been a very negative presidential race. i'm sure we are going to discuss, and sure some callers

might want to discuss if negativity is necessarily a bad thing. it sounds like a scary word, but both campaigns are focusing their ammunition on the other at this point. i would expect to see that change a little bit as we go forward, especially with the obama campaign remaining focused on that mitt romney, but i think at some point, we will see the romney campaign shift because it needs to introduce itself to the american people. host: i want to point out this article from "the held" newspaper --

host: do you think they will go there on some of these issues? guest: i don't know if they will go there on television advertising. their allies may go there in other ways. but some important points in that article is making -- just because one campaign is talking with the other campaign doesn't mean it's unfair or that it's nasty. i think most of the debate, we have had to put all sorts of exaggerations' once seized in political ads or speeches in the building across the street crossed. but i don't think we have seen anything below the belt so far. host: if you would like to join the discussion, give us a call at the numbers on your screen.

while folks are calling in, give us a sense of what your group does in tracking these ads. guest: we basically have three buckets of clients. one bucket is the news media. we have a number of major news organizations that work with us to track political advertising. political advertising tends to be the most visible form of campaigning and is where most of the money is spent. we're going to see a little over $3 billion spent on local television alone. when you add cable television, it will be between $3.5 billion to $3.7 million. retract that through the campaigns. we're working both for the obama campaign and the romney campaign and we work for the committees as well and we work for a number

of trade associations. how do you define a positive at a verses 8-that? some are easy to tell, but what is your cut off point? guest: there are a number of different ways one can go about doing this. we have a very simple tool -- if it's about a person, it's a negative ad. if it's about you, it's a positive that. we don't go for fair or unfair, accuracy or misleading. others do that. we have a very similar determination of whether it's a negative that are positive that. host: let's look at one of those ads now. this is a run the ad that has been out, running that has been defined as a negative ad. >> barack obama's attacks against mitt romney are just not true. this ad is misleading, unfair

and untrue. but that is barack obama. he also attacked hillary clinton with a vicious lies. >> he continues to spend millions of dollars perpetuating also adds. >> mitt romney has a plan to get america working. barack obama, the worst job creation record. >> shame on you, barack obama. ads: we're looking at these and will play a few more. is there a downside to running these ads? everybody says they hate negative ads. >guest: everybody says they hate negative ads, but there's a campaign and the real practitioners of negative ads but is there any sort of backlash on the person who errs the ad. there was some talk in the past weeks that the obama campaign was concerned there is a little bit of a rebound against them

that they were airing is so many negative ads against nec -- against mitt romney that it was have the impact on the president's favorability numbers. i have not seen strong evidence that either way. i think there is a strategic demand in a campaign and this is a presidential election that's not going to be determined completely by political advertising. it's not going to be determined by political advertising. this is a referendum on the incumbent and generally the referendum is going to be determined by reality. what are the economic conditions? what does america's place in the world? we have a president who is very much in a gray area. if his approval ratings were higher, he would almost certainly be elected. if things were going worse and his job approval is less, he would almost certainly lose matter who the opponent was.

but he is in that gray area and he's in a position like george w. bush was where the obama campaign is not going to change attitudes by advertising. there are people like the president and people who dislike the president. there are very few undecided voters and very few people have not met their mind about president barack obama. are they going to end up voting is one question. the their attitudes are mostly going to be shaped by what is going on in terms of reality. what the obama campaign can try to control as perceptions of mitt romney. even though this presidential election is going to be a referendum on the incumbent, mitt romney needs to reach the threshold level of credibility. mitt romney need to introduce himself to the american people. barack obama is very well known. mitt romney, not so much.

that is why you see the obama campaign going strongly negative on mitt romney. they are trying to define him and introduce him and stop him from reaching a threshold level of credibility. >> we showed you one of mitt romney's adds. we'll show you one of president obama's negative ads. >> of barack obama, and i approve this message. >> tax havens, carried in just -- a carried interest. mitt romney has -- it makes you wonder if some year he paid any taxes at all. we don't know because mitt romney has released only one full year of his tax returns and will release anything before 2010. >> we have put out as much as we're going to put out. >> what is mitt romney hiding? host: the "washington post" has a special section on negative ads.

the number one group running negative ads would be president barack obama's campaign. about 57% of all ads run by barack obama have been negative ads. that's about a total of $39 million in spending so far. where are the concentrations as we show folks this map here in the markets being targeted? guest: this is a very concentrated race. there are really eight battleground states. we're talking about virginia, north carolina, florida, ohio, iowa, colorado, nevada. very, very focused on eight states. it went from 0 to 60 incredibly quickly and went very negative and very quickly in those states. pay attention to how those states changer don't change.

they're doing their polling and strategy but where they end up staying and where they end up going over the next 98 days is going to tell you a lot about how this campaign is going. if we see political advertising starting to be in places like wisconsin and pennsylvania, that's a good sign for republicans. if we see continued heavy advertising in places like north carolina, that's good news for the democrats. north carolina is a must have four republicans in the general election. wisconsin and pennsylvania are must haves for democrats. if the advertising air wars get to be played on the other side of the field for an opposing side, that's a good tell that it is going well for one side or the other. host: the latest number from the cbs-"new york times" poll. it is looking like it's going to

be tight all the way out. let's go to the phone lines now. pamela is on the independent line. thank you for joining us. caller: i just want to make a comment about the outrageous, disgusting amounts of money spent on this election, and the election. it outrages me -- a billion dollars? i'm appalled at the amount of money spent and there is not a hairsbreadth worth of difference between any of these candidates. i frankly believe there has not been an honest, decent president since harry truman and i realize this sounds like an old person talking, but they are all on the take one way or another and this negative stuff, does anybody actually believe romney kept all of his money by being an honest, upright human being? probably the same thing can be said of any candidate, but the amount of money is just -- it

just outrages me when there are people in this country who are hurting -- homeless and depressed -- it just outrages me and i wanted to make that comment. guest: you probably will be happy to learn that about $246 million has been spent on advertising so far and positive ads, 20%, negative ads, 72%. guest: if she is appalled by $1 billion, i don't know what she'll think about the $7 billion spent on this election cycle. we'll have over a billion dollars spent on political advertising alone just in the presidential race. that doesn't include the other races and other things campaigns spend money on. it's interesting to me when people attack negative advertising and have strong

feelings about the state of american politics and the quality of our presidents the last 60 some odd years. host: but they wouldn't be spending this money if it didn't work. >guest: she had a very strong feelings about mitt romney and you know what that's called? as called a negative ad. that someone using their first amendment rights and policing their opinion about politics. we can have a discussion about the state of american politics and we can have a state -- we can have a discussion about quality of our political leaders and people can agree or disagree about it. but the notion political advertising is especially venal and different in terms of its content or town or volume, the

speeches we have by members of congress, the talking points members of congress and president's press people say and the campaign cost press people say is part and parcel of political rhetoric in the united states. we can have a discussion whether it is good or bad but to just focus on advertising is a little bit unfair. host: we have this common front- runner -- -- this comment from a twitter. guest: at the risk of being repetitive, this is the point i have made on the show before -- should it campaigns be positive ads? if they want to. but often, the positive as we see don't have any meat in them. there's nothing one can verify. i give the example of someone walking on the beach in their khaki pants and blue shirt --

who can be against that? how can you verify that? why is that any more meaningful or better than an ad talking about someone's record in a factual way that can be checked by people and the media? host: have the fact checkers had an impact on this race? guest: i think the campaigns to worry about that when the craft a gnat. i don't think this is around a worrying about that but it makes them have their backed up evidence for the ads they are running. it also adds to the debate. i'm one who believes the campaign should be able to say whatever they want and the media should be able to say whatever they want and it would be difficult to say one side is going to win or lose in this race because they don't have a chance to get their message out.

i think it would be difficult to say people don't have sources for information. host: with a to clarksville, md. on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you. please, if you will, refresh my memory as to the three positive spanish speaking commercials that aired last week. where the pro-obama or pro-mitt romney? >> one was a pro mitt romney and one was obama. -- >> president obama goes on the road this week, campaigning in ohio and florida and virginia. republican presidential candidate, mitt romney, concluded his three-nation overseas tour today with a

foreign-policy address at the university of warsaw library and poland. he talked about the relationship with poland and praised poland for its economic efforts to stimulate investment, expand trade and live within its means. you will see that speech later on our program scheduled. his trip began on wednesday and london and travel to israel before arriving in poland yesterday. the u.s. house is coming in for morning our speeches. legislative work starts at 3:30 eastern. members will consider 19 bills today, including stemming the abuse of government credit cards and for the limits on abortions of the district of columbia. later in the week, the house plans to debate a short term farm bill extension containing farm subsidies, food stamps, and draw relief. also, extending the expiring tax cuts. the senate took care of that last week's -- last week. and looking at the tax code for

a possible restructuring. the senate is continuing looking at us cyber security issues. live coverage of that debate as live on c-span2 and not to the house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. july 31, 2012. i hereby appoint the honorable steve womack to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 17, 2012, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority

leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to one hour and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes each but in no event shall debate continue beyond 1:50 p.m. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, thank you very much. again i try to get to the floor once a week to talk about our failed policy in afghanistan. last thursday an article in the politico reminded us of the difficulty trying to change a culture like afghanistan. it is nearly impossible. for centuries the outside influences have been trying, but we are never going to be able to change the police systems and culture of the middle east. the "mitt could he" article stated that parts of afghanistan were stuck in the 14th century. we are supporting a corrupt country and a culture where it

is commonplace for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. the american taxpayers should be outraged to know that their tax dollars are going to support this kind of practice. yesterday "the washington post" published an article titled, "u.s. construction projects in afghanistan challenge by inspector generals' report." while discussing the fact that projects implemented in afghanistan by americans will not be possible for the afghans to sustain once the united states leaves, the questions for policy makers in washington is whether the massive influx of american spending in afghanistan is actually making the problem worse. one such project to provide electricity requires purchasing diesel fuel to run the generators enough to power about 2,500 afghan homes or small businesses. is projected to cost the united states taxpayer about $220

million through 2013. i mean, mr. speaker, it's just billions and billions and billions and billions going to afghanistan and very little accountability. and yet we are cutting programs for the american people. i don't know to me it makes no sense at all. mr. speaker, again i brought this poster today. this is a new one i purchased myself. mr. speaker, there's a little girl holding her mother's arm. the mother is being escorted by an army officer, and the little girl is looking at the caisson carrying her father. her father is under an american flag. the father was killed in afghanistan for america. i would say to this family, you should be very proud of your father. i would say to congress, why can't you understand that you've got a failed policy in afghanistan and these young men and women are dying, these

young men and women are losing their legs and arms and yet we keep sending $10 billion a month to a corrupt leader where they have the practice of adult men making love with boys over there in afghanistan. i just don't understand the congress to be honest with you. mr. speaker, as you know and many know i have cam lejeune marine base in my district. the last 10 days three marines have been killed in afghanistan. i salute their families and thank them for the gift of their loved one. how many more young men and women have to die in afghanistan? how many more taxpayers' dollars have to go to prop up a corrupt leader? afghanistan will not survive under karzai. the taliban will eventually take over. and, mr. speaker, before closing as i always do, first i like to ask the american people to contact their members of congress and say bring our troops home now.

at least no later than 2014 and stop spending our taxpayers' money when you can't even account for what it's being spent for in afghanistan and spend it right here in america and build our roads, schools, and infrastructure. so on behalf of this little girl and her mom, and all the families who have given loved ones dying for freedom in afghanistan, i will close this way. god please bless our men and women in uniform. god please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. god in your loving arms hold the families who have given a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. god please bless the house and senate we will do a what is right in god's eyes for the people of today and people of tomorrow. and i ask god to please bless the president of the united states to give him wisdom, courage, and strength to do what's right for god's people here. and three times i will say, god please, god please, god please continue to bless america. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady

from the district of columbia, ms. norton, for five minutes. ms. norton: mr. speaker, sometimes schoolyard boys pick on the wrong kid. antitrust forces thought they found a cheap way to make a large point against the right of women in our country to reproductive health and choice. so they picked on the district of columbia. picked a fight with the district of columbia. after all the district of columbia doesn't have a vote. even if the billle is about only the district of columbia. -- bill is only about the district of columbia, but in the process they picked a fight with the women of the united states because this is still a pro-choice nation. they didn't want to get women worked up in an election year,

but they wanted a federal label. so they thought they could get the house to pass a bill that's coming to the floor today on suspension that women in the district of columbia are not entitled to an abortion previability at 20 weeks. mind you, everywhere else in the united states that right still would exist. and while they are at it, they say let's penalize women by allowing an injunction against abortion by these women by anybody, any caretaker who has had anything to do with them anywhere in their life. i guess the elementary school nurse could come in and seek and injunction and penalize doctors. two years in jail. and a fine. no health exceptions for the woman no matter her health or

fetal abnormality. no rape, incest exception. one of my constituents, professor zinc, had an abortion at 21 weeks. the earliest time her physicians discovered that she was carrying a fetus with half a brain. had it been born alive at all, it would have had constant seizures. she would have had to carry that fetus to term. sometimes boys pick the wrong fight. the forces have threatened leadership here and particularly republicans saying they are going to score the vote. all that did was bring out the really big boys. planned parenthood and pro-choice, naral, who are going to score it as well. it will take 2/3 to pass this bill.

i'm hoping that you won't get that kind of supermajority. this is not the typical anti-home rule bill that holds everyone else harmless except d.c. residents, the d.c. government. this bill is a key element in a state by state campaign that seeks first undermine and eliminate reproductive choice and relt for -- health for women across the united states. the miscalculated, they have reinvigorated the pro-choice movement. they have -- just as they did when they infill freighted the susan -- infiltrated the susan b. komen race for the cure and forced could he men to do -- komen to do reverse take and continue to give to parenthood just as they did when they failed to defund planned parenthood. just as they did with the attack on contraceptives in

health care policies. now people see this fight against reproductive choice for what it is because it ended with the constitutional right to abortion. they have abandoned all their principles because if they feel so deeply you how could they put a bill in that would affect only women and fetuses in the district of columbia. the supreme court decided 39 years ago that a woman is entitled to an abortion. it's not a constitutional right everywhere except the nation's capital. the it's a constitutional right everywhere. they are great but they are differences we must respect and the supreme court has settled those differences with roe vs. wade, which says previability, this is between a woman and her doctor. active viability, of course there are some things that can be done, but the health of the mother always has to be a large

factor. this bill stretches beyond any penalty, any doctors in our country will ever receive. any penalty on women. and it is the kind of bill that sends a message to women. this is not a house that is protecting her reproductive health f this bill passes, it will cause -- health. if this bill passes, it will cause the kind of uproar we have not seen in almost 40 years. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman from california, mr. dreier, for five minutes. mr. dreier: thank you very much, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, nearly three decades ago one of my great heroes, ronald reagan, famously said, in all of the arsenals of the world, no weapon is so powerful as the will and moral courage of free men and women. for the last year and a half, no development on the world stage has drawn greater

interest or sparked more passioned debate than the upheaval in the arab world. what started in tunisia in december of 2010 has spread throughout north africa and the middle east, leafing virtually no arab nation un-- leaving virtually no arab nation untouched. tunisia out ofed a dictator. libya fought a civil war. rid itself of its dictators and held elections. in both cases, particularly in libya, blood was shed but it has so far not been in vain. as real hope for democracy and improved quality of life prevails. other countries such as morocco and jordan have seen more modest changes but in the same direction toward greater openness. elsewhere in the arab world, this unprecedented chain of events has thus far taken a far more tragic path.

the syrian people are suffering immeasurably for their efforts to unseat a regime that has proven itself eager to take innocent lives in brutal fashion. in countries like bahrain, the violence has been more limited but no less tragic. even in those nations where regimes stifle public discourse, we know that the autocrats are watching. they are mindful of rage's lesson that the will of the people can -- reagan's lesson that the will of the people cannot be suppressed indefinitely. of all the nations where this movement was unfolded, none holds greater sway over the future of the region than egypt. since the fall of mubarak last year, egypt has held parliamentary and presidential elections. both swept the muslim brotherhood to office, setting up a power struggle between the brotherhood's leadership, the secularists, and military council.

knowing of the harsh and deeply troubling rhetoric the brotherhood has used over the years, many americans rightly ask the question, can we work with the newly elected leadership in egypt? should we continue to provide support to this government and the egyptian people? what exactly does the brotherhood stand for and how will they lead? mr. speaker, these are important questions. to answer them we have to go beyond the reactionary and reductionist assumption that are often made. i spent a great deal of time in asia meeting with staunchsleckarrists and everyone in between, including leaders and members of the muslim brotherhood. what i found is a vast movement that is far from monolithic. it is made up of moderates and hardliners, reformers, and the old guard, and great internal differences exist. one thing, however, that has

unified them is their public statement of support for the camp david peace accords. human rights, including women's rights, as well as religious freedom. all of which are prerequisites to meet their quest to get their economy back on track through tourism and international investment. i'm joined with a democratic colleague in introducing a resolution calling for a free trade agreement with egypt to help achieve just that. . ultimately we will judge them, not by their words, but by their actions. but the mere fact that these public statements have been made says a great deal about the stark difference between the nature of an underground movement, which the muslim brotherhood was, and an elected government. now that the brotherhood has at least taken some of the responsibility of writing the

economy, it will face enormous pressure to pursue a reform agenda, engage appropriately with the west and we as americans have an responsibility to live up to our own ideals. how can we preach democracy yet shun the free and fair choices of egyptians? of course we cannot be naive. we have to recognize that democracy is about more than just elections. but also about protecting minority rights and building institutions that outlast the individuals who occupy them. but we also have to recognize that supporting only democracies around the world that produce our own preferred results is the height of hypocrisy. on a more practical level, compromising our own values would only strengthen the hands of anti-western fundamentalists. refusing to engage with the muslim brotherhood would simply

achieve a self-fulfilling prophecy by giving rise to extremists over reformists and moderatists. no country can make a full transition to a thriving, stable, peaceful and prosperous democracy quickly and painlessly. even with the most optimistic of outlooks, the egyptian people will struggle for years to come to throw off the shackles of the past and create the kind of future for which we all strive. we have been working at this for 236 years, mr. speaker, and we still haven't gotten it exactly right. we have a responsibility as longtime egyptian allies and as champions of democracy around the globe to stand with them in this process. encouraging continued reform and providing our support for the development of real democracy in the arab world's most populous nation. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentleman

from north carolina, mr. miller, for five minutes. mr. miller: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i rise in support of the honoring america's veterans and caring for camp lejeune families act which the house will consider later today, especially title 1. title 1 in a similar house bill honors a 9-year-old girl who died from childhood leukemia most likely because she was exposed to contaminated drinking water at camp lejeune, north carolina, when her mother was pregnant with her. and by honoring janey we honor those americans who've shown remarkable determination to make their government do the right thing. they struggled for more than a decade to learn exactly what chemicals were in the drinking water at camp lejeune, water that perhaps a million marines and their families were exposed to over a 30-year period, to learn the health affects of exposure to the contaminated drinking water and to seek justice for those harmed. they took on their own government, including the marine corps, that they served

and through which they are still -- but shamefully reluctant to accept responsibility for the water contamination. janey's father, jerry, is retired marine who lived with his family on base at camp lejeune for a time. jerry watched his daughter become ill from leukemia, struggle with the disease and eventually lose the struggle. years after he watched his daughter die, jerry learned of the water contamination at camp lejeune and has not rested since. i first met jerry four years ago when he testified powerfully before the science and technology's committee, subcommittee on investigations and oversight which i then chaired. jerry worked shoulder to shoulder with others, including tom townsend, mike partine, jim, the byron family and william hill against long odds. the act is the result of their remarkable efforts. they were always faithful to

the cause of justice for those harmed by the cona number nated drinking water. the act will require the v.a. to provide medical coverage for certain illnesses to veterans who served at camp lejeune between 1957 and 1987 and to their families. the v.a. will be the payer of last resort. justice requires no less for the people harmed by the water contamination at camp lejeune. the harm will never be fully be made right. the bill will not help janey or her father, but the act acknowledges responsibility and provides needed treatment for many others. the marines who champed this legislation served our democracy -- champed this legislation served our democracy when they wore our nation's uniform and they served our democracy to obtain justice for the people harmed by the toxic drinking water at camp lejeune. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair now recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. poe, for five minutes. mr. poe: mr. speaker, we have

heard a lot about fairness from the president lately. perhaps his chicago advisors think if he distracts, divides and creates envy all in the name of so-called fairness americans will ignore their thrin wallets and stacked up bills. but people are smarter than back-room policycrats. he will have inherited a weak economy from his predecessor, himself. then who will he blame? the president was elected to solve problems, not place blame and make excuses for failure. unlike most americans, i want the administration to succeed. but the evidence is not on the administration's side. with unemployment higher than 8% for 41 months, even higher for recent college graduates above 50% and our deficit above $15 trillion, there isn't much of a record to stand on. so we are involved in a new madison avenue campaign diversion called remake

america, to make america fair. of course, fairness is in the eyes of the beholder and it means different things to different folks. but it certainly sounds good at first glance. mr. speaker, let's look at this idea. the politics of fairness are used when politicians want you to ignore their record and then claim that some people just haven't been treated fairly. this is a mere diversion from failed policy, failed ideas. when you look at the record you'll see this administration's definition of fairness really means favoritism. there's no fairness in crony capitalism. that is favoritism. there is no fairness in a perpetual bailout culture where the om nip want government deems some too big to fail and others too fall to succeed. that is favoritism. there is no fairness in forcing americans to fork over money to pay for failed pet endeavors like solyndra.

that is favoritism. there is no fairness in unaccountable government that constantly takes money from the working people and squanders it in a failed stimulus or, too, that is favoritism. and there is no fairness in forcing some laws while proudly ignoring other laws. that is favoritism. what this fairness debate or the politics of favoritism achieves is a systematic desire by government to create animosity. animosity towards those who have or trying to achieve some success. it also creates animosity toward government from those who built it on their own without being a member of the government's favored class. this debate degrades the american dream because it removes the equality of opportunity and creates a class of favorites. the class of government friends. there's no equality or fairness in forced equal outcomes. since some people are more

successful than others, to paraphrase lincoln, the government, which cannot make everyone rich, is trying to accomplish what it can do -- make everyone poor and dependent on the government for success. this is fairness? i think not. and encouraging individuals to succeed on their own, this administration tells american citizens that they need the government. in fact, according to "the wall street journal," only 50% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives a government benefit. bad policies have forced more americans to grow dependent on government. the president wants to, in his own words, remake america. remake it into what? a nation that where the government is run be roughshod over our lives and our liberty? a country where no one is allowed to succeed unless the government gives permission? no, thanks. i thought we threw that idea away when we left the regime of

king george iii. america doesn't need to be remade in a third world country totally oppressed by a government that wants america to be another european nanny state where special favoritism is given to government's special friends. we need to return to what our country was founded on, the pursuit of opportunity, or as jefferson said it, the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. the american dream, a dream that can come true with individualism and hard work and without a government that punishes ambition, creativity and success while rewarding failure, all in the name of fairness. the politics of favoritism under the guise of fairness is not the america we need. mr. speaker, the america i know doesn't need to be remade into the politics of favoritism and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes the gentlelady from california, ms. bass, for five minutes. ms. bass: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the life of a

friend and a remarkable individual from los angeles, willis edwards. for the past 40 years, mr. edwards tirelessly advocated for civil and political rights and african-americans were seen by the american public. throughout his life, willis edwards was known for his strength of conviction and passion for the promotion of the african-american community. after working for the robert kennedy presidential campaign in college and earning a bronze star in the u.s. army during the vietnam war, edwards helped to elect the first african-american mayor of los angeles, tom bradley, and he served as the youngest ever city commissioner on his social services commission. mr. edwards continued his career of service as the director of black student services at the university of southern california where he helped future generations of students discover their passion. in 16982, mr. edwards was

elected president -- 1982, mr. edwards was elected president of the los angeles branch of the naacp. as president, in 1986 he helped to nationally telephone advise the naacp image -- televise the naacp image awards which is a highly regarded entertainment event. mr. edwards never shied away from controversial subjects or issues. after his diagnosis with aids, he used his position on the national board of the naacp to publicly discuss the impact of hiv-aids in the african-american community and he organized the naacp's participation in world aids day. despite his health challenges, mr. edwards continued to support his friends and communities. until rosa parks' death in 2002, mr. edwards was a friend

and confident of the civil rights legend. he helped to promote her legacy by escorting her to the 1998 oscar ceremony and worked alongside former congresswoman julia carson for parks to receive the congressional medal of honor. upon her death, edwards arranged for her to lie in state here in the capitol rotunda. mr. speaker, i am proud to have called willis edwards a friend and a mentor. he has left an indelible mark on los angeles and his dedication to los angeles and politics will never be forgotten. it is great to recognize his life here on the floor today, his spirit and vision will truly be missed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess

meanwhile, also this afternoon the foreign relations subcommittee will look into the benefits and challenges of doing business in latin america. witnesses will talk about increased competition from china, market barriers and the impact of the political environment in latin america. c-span3 with live coverage at 2:00 p.m. eastern. >> we have to be really clear about the very many ways that we own ourselves and that we

own our history and that we make decisions that our history is phemenal, vital and special. >> the former president of bennett college, julianne malveaux, and this sunday, your questions, calls, emails and tweets for the author of "surviving and thriving: 365 facts in black economic history." in depth live at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv." republican presidential candidate mitt romney with a foreign policy address at the university of warsaw library in poland. he talked about the united states and poland's relationship and praised poland for its economic efforts. this is 15 minutes. >> thank you very much for that very warm welcome to this great city. it's been a privilege for me to meet with the president, the

prime minister, the foreign minister and the former president. it's an honor to be in this place, also. this is a nation with an extraordinary heritage that's crafting a remarkable future. your economy last year outperformed all the other nations of europe, quite an accomplishment. i began this trip in great britain and end it here in poland, the two book ends of nato, history's greatest military alliance that has kept the peace for over half a century. while i was at 10 downing street i thought back to the days of winston churchill, the man who first spoke of the iron curtain, that had descended across europe. what an honor to stand in poland among the men and women who helped lift that curtain.

after that stay in england, i visited the state of israel, a friend of your country and mine. it's been a trip to three places across the map, but for an american you can't get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you can in these places. our nation's belong to the great fellowship of democracies. we speak the same language of freedom and justice. we uphold the right of every person to live in peace. i believe it's critical to stand by those who stood behind america. solidarity is what freed a nation and it's with solidarity that america and poland face the future. yesterday i saw the memorial at westerplat and the gate at the shipyard. in both places, polish citizens

stood with courage and determination against daunting odds. and today on the eave of the 68th anniversary of this city's uprising against the nazis i will pay tribute at the monument to that historic struggle. over 200,000 poles were killed in those weeks and this city was nearly destroyed, but your enduring spirit, that surrifed. free men and women everywhere, whether they've been here or not, already know this about poland. in some desperate hours of the last century, your people were the witnesses to hope. led onward by strength of heart and faith in god. not only by force of arms but by the power of truth in villages and parishes across the land, you shamed the oppressor and gave light to the

darkness. time and again, history has recorded the ascent of liberty propelled by souls that yeern for freedom and justice. former secretary of state in the united states, condoleezza rice, has noted that it's often one brave man or woman that says no to oppression and in doing so sparks a revolution of courage and hundreds and thousands or millions of others . in 1955 in my country, rosa parks said no to a bus driver who told her to give up her seat to a white person and in doing so she started a revolution of dignity and equality that continues to this day. mohammed, a street vendor in tunisia, was denied his business wears by a government functionary and in protest committed suicide by

self-immolation. with that act of defiance, the arab spring was born. nikolai stood before an audience of 200,000, recounting for them his supposed works on their behalf. one elderly woman shouted out what others only thought -- liar, she said. others echoed her. first hundreds, then thousands and then tens of thousands. and with the fall later, the entire nation had awakened and the people were freed. and here in poland in 1979, a son of poland, pope john paul ii, spoke words that would bring down an empire and bring freedom to millions who lived in bondage. be not afraid, those words

changed the world. i and my fellow americans are inspired by the path of freedom, thread by the people of -- tread by the people of poland. the polish and american people were hardly strangers. the name pew laos key is honor -- pulaski is honored. two years after our young republic gave the new world the first freely written constitution, poland did the same for the old world with a preamble that called liberty dearer than life. at every turn in our history, through wars and crises, through every change in the geopolitical map, we have met as friends and allies. that was true in america's revolutionary war, it was true in the dark days of the second world war and it has been true in iraq and afghanistan. there's never been a moment when our people's felt anything

but mutual respect and good will and that's not common in history. americans watched with astonishment and admiration as an electrician led a peaceful protest against a brutal and oppressive regime. it has to be understood, the president said, that the solidarity movement philosophy was very simple. when you can't lift a weight you ask someone else for help and to lift it with you. of course the millions of poles who said yes there was one who has a unique and special place in our hearts, pope john paul ii. when he first appeared on the balcony above st. peters square, a correspondent on the scene wrote to his editor with the first impression. this is not just a pope from poland, he said. this is a pope from galilee. in 1979, pope john paul ii

celebrated mass with you in a square not far from here. he reminded the world there would be no justice in the world without an independent poland and he reminded the polish people long deprived of that dependence from where they drew their source of strength. while he was greeting a crowd along a fence, he met a little girl. he paused and asked her, where's poland? the little girl, caught offguard, couldn't answer him. she laughed nervously until the great pope put his hand over her heart and said, poland is here. john paul ii understood that a nation is not a flag or a plot of land. it is a people, a community of values and the highest valued poland honors to the world's great fortune is man's innate desire to be free.

unfortunately, there are parts of the world today where the desire to be free is met with brutal oppression. just to the east of here, the people of belarus suffer under the oppressive weight of dictatorship. the arab world is undergoing an historic upheaval, one that holds promise but also risk an uncertainty. syria has killed thousands. its brutal dictator responsible for the lives of thousands of his own people. in latin america, hugo chavez leads a movement characterized by authoritarianism and oppression. nations in africa are fighting now to resist the threat of radical violent jihadism. and in russia, once promised advances towards a free and open society, have faltered. in a turbulent world, poland stands as an example and a defender of freedom.

last month a sculpture was unveiled of ronald reagan and john paul ii. as the president told a reporter, reagan should have a monument in every city. one recalled the days in 1981 when he, walesa and others were imprisoned by the communist regime. just like they thought would be forgotten in the world, they learned the president of the united states was lighting candles. it was a demonstration of unity, unity with them, a sign of solidarity. when reagan lit the candles, he recalled, we knew we had a friend in the united states. this is a country that made a prisoner a president, that went from foreign domination to the proud and independent nation you are today and now for both our nations the challenge is to

be worthy of his legacy as we find our way forward. the false gods of the all-powerful state claim the allegiance of a lonely few. it is for us in this generation and beyond, to show all the world what free people and free economies can achieve for the good of all. perhaps because here in poland centralized control is no distant memory. you brought a special determination to securing a free and prosperous economy. when the soviet empire breathed its last, poland's economy was in a state of crisis. when economists analyzed it from abroad, one heard talk of the prospect of starvation in major cities. but from the depths of those dark times, this nation's steady rise is a shining example of the prosperity that economic opportunity can bring. your nation has moved from a

state monopoly over the economy with price controls and severe trade restrictions to a culture of entrepreneurship, greater fiscal responsibility and international trade. and as a result, your economy has experienced positive growth in each of the last 20 years. in that time you have doubled the size of your economy. the private sector has gone from a mere 15% of the economy to 65% today. and while other nations fell into recession in recent years, you've weathered the storm and continued to grow and flourish. when economists speak of poland today, it's not to lament chronic problems but to describe how this nation empowered the individual, lifted the heavy hand of government and became the fastest growing economy in all of europe.

yesterday, one of your leaders shared with me an economic truth that's been lost. he said this, it is simple. you don't borrow what you can't pay back. the world should pay close attention to poland's economy. a march toward economic liberty and smaller government has meant a march toward higher living standards, a strong military that defends military at home and abroad, and an important and growing role on the international stage. rather -- poland sought to stimulate innovation, expand trade and live within its means. your success today is a reminder that the principles of free enterprise can propel an economy and transform a society. it's such a time of difficulty

and doubt throughout europe. poland's economic transformation over these past 25 years is a fitting turn in the story of your country. in the 1980's when other nations doubted that political tirney could ever be overcome -- tyranny could be overcome, they said, look to poland. as we get out of fiscal crisis, the answer once again is, look to poland. it's not surprising that a people who endured so long and gave up so much are today enjoying liberty to the fullest. poland has no greater friend and ally than the people of the united states of america. you helped us win our independence. your bravery inspired the allies in the second world war. you helped britain down the iron curtain and your soldiers fought side by side with ours

in iraq and afghanistan. we have fought together, we have died together. we share a common cause tested by time, insprayable by foe, in times of trouble and in times of peace, we march together. god bless you, god bless america and god bless the great nation of poland. thank you so much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> president obama goes on the road this week campaigning in ohio, florida and virginia. tomorrow the president will be in mansfield and akron, ohio. on thursday he travels to

orlando and virginia. members will consider 19 bills including stemming abuse of government credit cards and further limits on abortions in the district of columbia. the house plans to debate a short-term extension of the farm bill which includes farm subsidies, food stamps and drought relief. and extending the expiring tax cuts and an overall review of the tax code for possible restructuring. live house coverage on c-span. the house rules committee will gavel in this afternoon to consider legislation for later in the week. we'll have that live for you at 5:00 eastern on c-span3. >> we did not begin as a city in kentucky. there was only a vague native american region and later a county and another state called kentucky. but we began in 1778 as louisville, virginia.

>> this weekend, join "book tv," "american history tv" from louisville, kentucky, saturday at noon eastern. lit are aer life with "book tv" on c-span2. on kentucky's senior senator mitch mcconnell. and on rebooting american politics. and sunday at 5:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv," three weeks at farmington plantation in -- and tour that plantation today. also, the hay day of the steamboat on the ohio river. take a look back on the belle of louisville. once a month, the local content vehicles explore the literary life of cities. this week from louisville on c-span2 and 3. >> health and human services secretary kathleen sebelius join a number of democrats on the hill to promote new women's

health provisions that go into effect tomorrow, august 1. it requires health insurance companies to offer certain preventive health services without additional co-pays. this is just under an hour. >> we got our team. everybody here. well, good morning, everybody. i first of all want to start by thanking senator few culls key for organizing -- mukulski for organizing this and a consumer from ohio to talk about women's health. the leaders i am with today have been strong leaders for women and their health for decades and i am really pleased to join them. today is -- we're here to mark

a new day for women in america. starting tomorrow thanks to the new health care law, all insurance policies will be required to cover new vital care that women need to stay healthy. and they'll have to cover the care without charging women anything out of pocket. now, as women we're likely to be the health care decisionmakers in our families. keeping our children up to date on checkups, urging our spouses to take care of themselves, helping an elderly parent stay on medication or find the extra money in the family budget to pay for health insurance. but too often we put our own health last, and that's especially true when it comes to preventive care -- the regular checkups and screenings that are so important to staying healthy but can be too easy to put off. and what makes it worse is that before the health care law many insurers didn't even cover basic women's care. other health care plans charge

such high co-payments that they discouraged many women from getting basic preventive services. so as a result surveys show that more than half of the women in this country delayed or avoided preventive care because of its costs and that's simply not right and it's not good for our country. but thanks to the health care law it's about to change. thanks to the new law, new private plans and medicare have already begun covering potentially life-saving tests and care for men and women such as cholesterol screenings and flue shots with no -- flu shots with no co-pay. and beginning tomorrow all new insurance plans will be required to cover additional services and tests for women with no out-of-pocket costs, including domestic violence screenings, f.d.a. approved contraception, breast-feeding counseling and supplies and a well woman visit where she can sit down and talk with her

health care provider. according to a report released today by our department, approximately 47 women in america will soon be eligible to receive this vital care with no co-pay. now, no woman should have to choose between seeing her doctor and putting food on the table for her family, and now many women won't have to make that difficult choice any longer. it's important to note that soon women will see even more protections thanks to the new health care law. starting in 2014, it will be illegal for companies to deny someone coverage because they're a breast cancer survivor or pregnant or a victim of domestic violence. and it will also be illegal finally in america to charge women more than men just because they're women. in other words, being a woman will no longer be a pre-existing condition in this country.

now, for too long insurance companies have stacked the deck against women, forcing us to pay more for coverage that didn't meet our needs, and thanks to the affordable care act, a new day for women's health has finally arrived. and now i'd like to turn over the podium to senator mukulski, who not only has been an incredible champ for women's health but is the dean of women in congress. >> thank you very much, madam secretary. >> good morning, everybody. what a happy day. tomorrow, august 1, will be an opportunity for women who in need of preventive health care services will be able to take a giant step forward to have access to the care they need without the barriers of cost or discrimination. tomorrow, august 1, put this

down on your calendar, women will be able to have access to essential preventive services that will provide early detection and screening for those situations where they're most at risk and also provide opportunities to care and services that they need as wives and mothers. this is called the women's preventive health care amendment. now, during the health care debate, we wanted to do two things -- we wanted to be able to save lives and save money. we knew that preventive health care was an essential cornerstone to that. early detection means early detection and screening provides the kind of information where we know the problem before it spreads to a lethal nature. one of the most important tools we women have is mammograms,

but in the midst of the health care debate, they wanted to take our mammograms away from us. well, hey, not while i'm here. what did we do? we led with senator harkin and senator d.o.d. working with the good -- senator dodd working with the good men and women, we brought forward the women's preventive health care amendment. we suited up. we've put on our good stick and we were able to pass this legislation. and what does it mean? it means that we will be able to have access to those early detection and screening things who are breast cancer, colon rectal cancer, all those dreaded c words that we were

terror find of. we know -- terrofide of. we didn't just want to write the benefit. we wanted to turn to the learned society like the institutes of medicine to say, what were the essential services, and that's why they came up with the annual checkup, the breast-feeding support, the domestic violence screening as well as access to contraception. what we now will be able to do was the top pillars of women will no longer go undetected. the kind of support services we need to be healthy, to be good mothers and to be able to have our family life will be able to do it. and we eliminate the barriers to care, the most important was cost because often women did not seek that because of the co-pays and the deductibles. the second was the very attitude of insurance companies

to charge women more and we got less. we've eliminated those barriers. we've eliminated those benefits. and on august 1 women all over america will be able to have access to care that they've had to fight for for so long. i'm so grateful that we could pass the affordable care act, that we had the support of the leadership, that this wasn't only a woman's issue, it was a family issue. yes, we women often brought it to the attention but we had the support of fantastic men. and one of our great champions here has been senator tom harkin. when he was one of the prime movers in the health care -- the affordable care act, he's one of the prime movers in the whole concept of prevention and wellness will both save lives and save money. and he's been a great champion for we women proving the fact that men of quality never are

shy about supporting women who seek equality. let me bring up our good friend and our champion, senator tom harkin. >> boy, is it tough to follow barbara mikulski. first, thank you, secretary sebelius, to for your leadership and for the department of health and human services and, again, i can't thank barbara mikulski, senator mikulski. we teamed up together. senator kennedy asked each of us to head certain parts of the health care reform bill. we worked together have i closely to put this all together, and while we worked very hard to put together a strong preventive package that includes everyone, because we wanted to change the sick care system to a health care system, one where people could get early checkups and prevent an illness from progressing.

a lot of that went into effect a couple years ago under the preventive services -- preventive services health task force recommendation but that covered everyone. what we're talking about that goes into effect tomorrow are the recommendations of the institute of medicine that pertained particularly to women and that was what barbara mikulski championed so hard and brought to the senate was this focus, this focus that because women -- do i need to state the obvious -- are different than men, and certain health requirements for women are different than men. and so we asked the institute of medicine to come up with a list of preventive services that ought to be included in this package. they did. that's what starts tomorrow. so tomorrow 47 million american women will now be able to get preventive services that they could not get before at no

cost, no co-pays, no deductibles. they will be able to go in and get a well woman visit annually as a checkup. i know we focused a lot on breast cancer and other cancer screenings, and i will return to that in just a second, but there's a lot of other things too. detecting things early whether it's asthma or diabetes or a whole host of other things that women need a well woman visit every year. so that will start tomorrow. 47 million american women, 519,000 in my state of iowa. when they get their plans renewed will have these preventive services available to them. so we fought very hard to include these. senator mikulski has given me a lot of -- but she focused like a laser on this issue of making sure that women had all of these preventive services